= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on Heading Toward: No-Nonsense Metaethics - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (57)
Hmmmm. What do other people think of this idea?
I suspect one reason Eliezer did not do this is that when you make a long list of claims without any justification for them, it sounds silly and people don't pay attention to the rest of the sequence. But if you had first stepped them through the entire argument, they would have found no place at which they can really disagree. That's a concern, anyway.
My reaction to this idea depends a lot on how the sequence gets written.
If at every step along the way you appear to be heading towards a known goal, I'm happy to go along for the ride.
If you start to sound like you're wandering, or have gotten lost in the weeds, or make key assertions I reject and don't dispose of my objections, or I otherwise lose faith that you know where you're going, then having a roadmap becomes important.
Also, if your up-front list of claims turns out to be a bunch of stuff I think is unremarkable, I'll be less interested in reading the posts.
OTOH, if I follow you through the entire argument for an endpoint I think is unremarkable, I'll still be less interested, but it would be too late to act on that basis.